LOL. Good thing you're not bitter.

I was wondering how they would get 3 films out of the Hobbit, but if they bring in like the wizard council, the necromancer and all that ... I am sad though that we won't have the whole story in 2 years. I hope they don't have to put too much stuff in it where it's not the right story anymore.

LOTR was 3 films, based on 3 books, and each of those books was the length of The Hobbit or greater, right?
 
They announced today that The Hobbit will be made into three movies, a trilogy. Cool! The more, the merrier!

I think its stupid. I mean, I know they said that they're gonna take stuff from the appendices but really? Two movies for the Hobbit was pushing it, three is just insane. I think that if P'J wants to make more LOTR related movies he should make the Sil into movies. You could like get at least ten out of that.:rolleyes:

Its not that I don't want more movies from the Middle Earth universe, but three Hobbit movies is too many. The book is not long enough to make three movies out of and if they want to make movies for stuff in the apprendices then they should label it differently. LOTR is a great triology, but the Hobbit was never meant to be one.
 
Mozart is quite right that The Hobbit by itself simply does not have the material to support a cinema trilogy. She also has a good idea in suggesting Silmarillion movies. Yet I do think that a judicious use of appendix material can succeed. If the moviemakers will really commit themselves to seriously depicting the two Wizards whom Tolkien neglected to show onstage, that would be a good expansion right there.
 
If it's in three parts, and the other source material has nothing to do with The Hobbit, than they should call it what it's based off of. IMO it should just be one film. I think it's PJ trying to bank off the success that he had with LOTR. It's not a bad thing, because I am sure he will do a splendid job with it, as he did with LOTR, but three movies for a book that isn't that long could be just one movie. It seems like ever since the final Harry Potter book was split into two movies, a lot of other franchises are jumping on the bandwagon.
 
I think it's kind of stupid, them making three movies and all. But as long as they have the footage to fill three movies and that they are made well, then I'll be content :p
 
I think it's kind of stupid, them making three movies and all. But as long as they have the footage to fill three movies and that they are made well, then I'll be content :p
That is kind of how I feel -- I wonder how they will get enough material out of The Hobbit to fill three movies, but if they use a lot of the stuff from the appendixes and keep it interesting and true to Tolkien, I will be happy with it.
 
That is kind of how I feel -- I wonder how they will get enough material out of The Hobbit to fill three movies, but if they use a lot of the stuff from the appendixes and keep it interesting and true to Tolkien, I will be happy with it.

I will too! I just don't think all three should be called The Hobbit. Other Tales Of Middle Earth would be a more fitting title IMHO.
 
Between The Hobbit and the Appendices, there'll be plenty to fill three movies. I'd rather this than have them drop a bunch of stuff in favor of battle sequences, like they did for the theatrical version of ROTK. I expect good things.

Though I do see the irony. The Hobbit is shorter than any of the three parts of LOTR. I think LOTR should have been six films... :D
 
I agree LOTR could have been 6 films.

But I don't like the summer release in 2014. It's a tradition for December!
 
I watched the trailer last night, and of the clips I saw it looks pretty faithful. The only thing that will tell how faithful it is, is time. I do have confidence in Peter Jackson, and his adaptation of The Hobbit. I still don't see the need for three films, because it could be done nicely in one long film.
 
The Hobbit Movie(s)

It seems to me that the Inklings section is a reasonable place to begin a thread that we are going to need in any case. I'm planning to buy my ticket in advance for "An Unexpected Journey."

I am not annoyed by Peter Jackson making it two movies. Additions made to the plot don't have to be damaging, since IN TOLKIEN'S OWN SCENARIO there were things going on at the time of Bilbo's journey that didn't make it into the text of the novel. If I had been in Jackson's place and were going to fill out the story, one thing I would do would be to introduce the character of Bard the Bowman in the FIRST movie. He would not be seen WITH Bilbo's party at that time, but the audience would get to see what he might have been doing BEFORE he turned up in Lake-Town.

I might even say that Gandalf, before ever enlisting Bilbo to help the Dwarves, met Bard and TOLD him he should head for Lake-Town on his own.
 
My dear lady friend and I are both very excited about this movie. I hope to go and see it with her, but being seperated by a great many miles and a state line makes this look near impossible at this time. However, I'm praying for a miracle to make it work out.

I recently heard that they're actually planning to extend The Hobbit into THREE movies now, instead of the original two. Personally, I find it exciting to imagine how much more of the story will be told this way.
However, I am annoyed that Luke Evans was chosen to play Bard the Bowman, Bard being my favorite character. Luke Evans on the other hand is not only homosexual, but he looks like it too (skinny, wimpy young guy). When I read the book about 6 years ago, I pictured Bard as a man more like Russell Crowe or Viggo Mortensen in the role of Bard the Bowman (rugged, around 40 years old, and looks like he could be a veteran archer).
 
In my oppinion, this is the man who should be playing Bard the Bowman.
553355_10150867096242623_1170404622_n.jpg
 
I can't wait to see The Hobbit! I've been waiting since I saw Return of the King for the first time, all those years ago. I'm hoping that it'll turn out to be a good movie.
 
Back
Top